Conceptual Understanding of Visualizer and Verbalizer Using Multiple Representation

Fariz Setyawan, Eka Zuliana, Ruzlan Md Ali


Students’ understanding of function can be seen by their representation of symbols, words, and graphs. Students’ understanding can be determined by considering their choices in defining, giving examples, and presentations of functions from the presentation choices provided for them. This study had used three types of multiple representation which comprised of symbols, words, and graphs to describe students’ understandings of functions. In this descriptive qualitative research, the researchers had classified the subjects based on verbalizer learning style and visualizer learning style. Verbalizer and visualizer learning styles are forms of cognitive learning styles. Both the verbalizer and visualizer’s works were described based on their preferences in representing the given functions. Their works, as well as their response sin the interviews, provided opportunities for the researchers to study their emerging understanding of mathematical concepts. The verbalizer tends to connect her understanding by detail explanation of the given representation.  On the other hand, the visualizer tend to connect her imagination from a picture that represents her ideas.


conceptual understanding; multiple representation; cognitive learning style

Full Text:



Anam, R. S., Widodo, A., & Sopandi, W. (2017). Representation of Elementary School Teachers on Concept of Heat Transfer. In Journal of Physics: Conf. Series (p. 895).

Blazehenkova, O., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2008). The New Object-Spatial-Verbal Cognitive Style Model: Theory and Measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(5), 638–663.

Dunn, R., Beaudry, J. S., & Klavas, A. (2002). Survey of Research on Learning Styles. California Journal of Science Education, 2(2), 75–98.

Ginsburg, H. P., & Amit, M. (2008). What is teaching mathematics to young children? A theoretical perspective and case study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 274–285.

Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case for Mathematics, 1-27. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, M. a. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd Ed.)., 20(1), 159–160.

National Council Of Teachers Of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 47(8), 868–279.

Panasuk, R. M. (2010). Three Phase Ranking Framework for Assessing Conceptual Understanding in Algebra Using Multiple Representations. Education, 131(2), 235–257.

Panasuk, R. M. (2011). Taxonomy for assessing conceptual understanding in Algebra using multiple representations. College Student Journal, 45(2), 219–232.

Setyawan, F. (2017). Profil Representasi Siswa SMP terhadap Materi PLSV Ditinjau dari Gaya Belajar Kolb. Journal of Medives: Journal of Mathematics Education IKIP Veteran Semarang, 1(2), 82-91.

Setyawan, F., & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2017). Visualizer’s representation in functions. In Journal of Physics Conference Series (Vol. 943, No. 1, p. 012004).

Setyawan, F., Prasetyo, P. W., & Nurnugroho, B. A. (2020). Developing complex analysis textbook to enhance students’ critical thinking. JRAMathEdu (Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education), 5(1), 26-37.

Sierpinska, A. (2013). Understanding in Mathematics. Understanding in Mathematics.

Skemp, R. R. (1978). Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding. The Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9–15.

Skemp, R.R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20-26.

Skemp, R.R., (1982). The Psychology of Learning Mathematics, Great Britain: Hazell Watson & Viney.

Skemp, R.R. (1986). The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. Great Britain: Penguin.

Wu, C.-C., Dale, N. B., & Bethel, L. J. (1998). Conceptual models and cognitive learning styles in teaching recursion. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education - SIGCSE ’98 (pp. 292–296).



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Fariz Setyawan, Eka Zuliana, Ruzlan Md Ali

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education
Kampus 2 Universitas Ahmad Dahlan
Jalan Pramuka No. 42, Pandeyan, Umbulharjo, Yogyakarta - 55161
Telp. (0274) 563515, ext. 4902; Fax. (0274) 564604

p-ISSN: 2549-4996 | e-ISSN: 2548-5806

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

View IJEME's Stats